MARION MAUCK, APPELLANT,
v.
J. H. THERRELL, AS LIQUIDATOR OF BANK OF BAY BISCAYNE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision, holding that a bank customer who accepted partial payment in cashier's checks for a collection was not entitled to a preference for the unpaid portion when the bank became insolvent.
No, the appellant was not entitled to a preference because they elected to accept the cashier's checks as part of the settlement for the collection.
“In this case there is a substantial basis in the facts disclosed by the record for the finding of the Chancellor below that appellant, a customer of the defunct Bank of Bay Biscayne, elected to accept in settlementÍ of a collection accomplished by the bank for him, part currency and part in cashier’s checks of denominations designated by the customer, and that by reason of such circumstances, appellant was not entitled to a preference in the payment of the unpaid cashier’s checks that remained undischarged at the time the bank waá closed for .insolvency, no fraud in the transaction having been either alleged or proved with respect to the bank official’s conduct in regard to the matter.”
This quote summarizes the core facts and the lower court's finding that led to the denial of the preference claim.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, a customer of the Bank of Bay Biscayne, had a collection handled by the bank. The bank settled this collection by giving the appellant part…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
In this case there is a substantial basis in the facts disclosed by the record for the finding of the Chancellor below that appellant, a customer of the defunct Bank of Bay Biscayne, elected to accept in settlementÍ of a collection accomplished by the bank for him, part currency and part in cashier’s checks of denominations designated by the customer, and that by reason of such circumstances, appellant was not entitled to a preference in the payment of the unpaid cashier’s checks that remained undischarged at the time the bank waá closed for .insolvency, no fraud in the transaction having been either alleged or proved with respect to the bank official’s conduct in regard to the matter.
The decree appealed from must therefore be affirmed on the authority of Amos v. Baird, 96 Fla. 181, 117 Sou. Rep. 789. See also Massey-Harris Harvester Co. v. First State Bank of Cunningham, 122 Kan. 483, 252 Pac. Rep. 247. In passing it is appropriate to say that we do not regard this case as falling within what has held in Bryan v. Coconut Grove Bank & Tr. Co., 101 Fla. 947, 132 Sou. Rep. 481, or City of Miami v. First National Bank of St. Petersburg, 58 Fed. Rep. (2nd) 561.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., and Campbell, ' Circuit Judge, concur.
Brown, J., disqualified.
On Petition for Re-hearing.
The decree affirmed by this Court on March 2, 1933, was a final decree dismissing the bill. The bill sought to have complainant’s claim against the defendant bank adjudicated as being a preferred claim, which claim *513of preference the Court below and this Court denied. The alleged right of set off, as between complainant and the liquidator, if any such there be, on the basis of the now adjudicated status of the parties to each other, as that status has been fixed by this appeal, has not been passed on. Nor should the affirmance of the final decree herein be regarded as having any controlling effect on the decision of that question, inasmuch as its determination would have to be made on the relationship of the parties as they now stand adjudicated.
Re-hearing denied.
Davis, C. J., Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., disqualified.
On Petition for Re-hearing.
Per Curiam.
The decree affirmed by this Court on March 2, 1933, was a final decree dismissing the bill. The bill sought to have complainant’s claim against the defendant bank adjudicated as being a preferred claim, which claim of preference the Court below and this Court denied. The alleged right of set off, as between complainant and the liquidator, if any such there be, on the basis of the now adjudicated status of the parties to each other, as that status has been fixed by this appeal, has not been passed on. Nor should the affirmance of the final decree herein be regarded as having any controlling effect on the decision of that question, inasmuch as its determination would have to be made on the relationship of the parties as they now stand adjudicated.
Re-hearing denied.
Davis, C. J., Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Brown, J., disqualified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Hough v. Menses, 95 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1957)
-
Wise v. Ignatius C. Quina and Bertha N. Quina, 174 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
-
Al Brenner v. Smullian, 84 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1955)…lief to the plaintiff on its own motion. It has been held by this court that the doctrine of clean hands need not be pleaded in order to be available where the evidence disclosed its applicability. See State ex rel. Harris v. Gautier, 108 Fla. 390, 146 So. 562, 147 So. 240; Dale v. Jennings, 90 Fla. 234, 107 So. 175. The Alabama Supreme Court in the case of McInnis v. Sutton, 260 Ala. 432, 70 So. 2d 625, held that the court might apply the doctrine sua sponte. The appellants contend that the record show…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bryan, 132 So. 481 (Fla. 1931)
- Amos v. Baird, 96 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1928)